February 29, 2016 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger successfully represented Dillon Gage Metals, a large wholesaler of rare coins and bullion, in its long-running dispute with the Gagosian Gallery, a prominent New York art gallery, over the acquisition of 100 bars of gold. In 2009, the Gallery paid $3 million to Stanford Coins & Bullion, a business owned by the now-disgraced financier Allen Stanford, to acquire the gold for a major art installation. SCB, in turn, ordered the gold from Dillon Gage. Before the transaction could be completed, however, SCB was placed into federal receivership, and when the Gallery did not receive the gold, it sued Dillon Gage on the theory that the Gallery was a third-party beneficiary of the sales contract between SCB and Dillon Gage. After a multi-day trial, a jury found that the Gallery was not a third-party beneficiary of the SCB-Dillon Gage contract. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of Dillon Gage, agreeing with Levinger’s arguments that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the jury charge accurately expressed Texas law on third-party beneficiary status. Pre-War Art, Inc. v. Stanford Coins and Bullion, Inc., No. 1510033, 2016 WL 791042 (5th Cir. Feb. 29, 2016).

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

September 23, 2015 in Case Summaries

In a 2-1 opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment dismissal of an antitrust suit brought by Levinger PC client Sanger Insurance Agency against HUB International, an insurance broker that sells professional liability and other types of insurance products to veterinarians across the country. Although the Court held that HUB’s anti-competitive conduct was exempt from federal antitrust scrutiny under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, it revived Sanger’s claims under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act and various common law theories and remanded them for trial. Over the dissent of Judge Edith Jones, Judges Gregg Costa and Jerry Smith held that Sanger had established that it was sufficiently prepared to enter the market for selling veterinary insurance, and thus reversed the district court’s determination that Sanger lacked standing to challenge HUB’s conduct. Sanger Insurance Co. v. HUB Int’l, Ltd., 802 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2015)

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

August 21, 2015 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger successfully represented well-known Dallas attorney Daniel Sheehan in his appeal of an order of civil contempt and incarceration that a federal district judge issued against him while he was defending his client against a charge that it was in contempt of a prior injunction. The Fifth Circuit vacated the order in its entirety, holding that Sheehan “was not provided adequate due process” and that “there was insufficient evidence to find that he personally violated the injunction” previously issued by the district court. Sheehan’s successful challenge to the contempt order received extensive coverage in the Texas Lawyer and other legal publications. Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc. v. Testmasters Educational Services, Inc. v. Sheehan, 799 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2015).

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Ethics & Professional Malpractice

February 7, 2013 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented Paddle Tramps Manufacturing, a leading nationwide producer of fraternity and sorority items, in a trademark infringement case addressing the interplay between the equitable defense of laches and the availability of permanent injunctive relief in a trademark infringement case.  Working with trademark lawyers Molly Richard and Elizann Carroll, Levinger helped them persuade a Dallas federal court jury that Paddle Tramps’ opponents, 32 of the country’s largest fraternity and sorority organizations, were guilty of laches by waiting over 40 years to enforce their rights to their trademarks.  Based on this finding, the federal district judge denied the Greek Organizations’ request for damages and broad injunctive relief against Paddle Tramps, instead limiting Paddle Tramps’ ability to use the marks on certain advertising and products going forward.  On appeal, the Fifth Circuit rejected the Greek Organizations’ challenges to the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.  But the Court also upheld the injunction against Paddle Tramps on the ground that its overall business would not be substantially prejudiced.  Kenneth Abraham, d/b/a Paddle Tramps Manufacturing Co. v. Alpha Chi Omega, et al., 708 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2013).

Courts:  Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter:  Intellectual Property

October 11, 2012 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented Gruma, the manufacturer of Mexican food products sold under the well-known trademark MISSION, in its appeal seeking to reverse a district court’s conclusion that a Mexican restaurant chain called MISSION BURRITOS was not infringing upon or diluting Gruma’s MISSION trademark.  Despite the high level of deference that appellate courts ordinarily give to trial court’s findings of fact, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court had clearly erred in finding no likelihood of confusion or dilution from the restaurant chain’s use of the MISSION BURRITO mark.  The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the lower court to determine the appropriate scope of injunctive relief against the future use of the MISSION BURRITO mark.  Gruma Corp. v. Mexican Restaurants, Inc., 2012 WL 4842036 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2012).

Courts:  Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter:  Intellectual Property